Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves a challenge to seven rules promulgated by the State Elections Board (SEB) of Georgia. The plaintiffs, including individuals and organizations, argue that these rules were not authorized by the General Assembly and violated the nondelegation doctrine of the Georgia Constitution. The rules in question include requirements for video surveillance of absentee ballot drop boxes, hand counting of ballots, and the provision of photo identification when delivering absentee ballots, among others.The trial court found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the rules and ruled in their favor, declaring the rules unconstitutional and contrary to the Election Code. The court also found that the rules violated the nondelegation doctrine and the Federal Elections Clause. The defendants appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and determined that the organizational plaintiffs did not have standing, as they did not assert violations of their own rights. The individual plaintiffs had standing to challenge five of the seven rules based on their right to vote but did not have standing to challenge the Poll Watcher Rule and the Daily Reporting Rule. The court vacated and remanded the issue of whether one plaintiff had standing as a member of the Chatham County Board of Elections.On the merits, the court overruled the precedent set by Dept. of Transp. v. City of Atlanta, which had allowed broad delegations of legislative power to executive agencies. Applying a stricter nondelegation analysis, the court found that four of the five rules challenged by the individual plaintiffs were not authorized by statute and thus invalid. The Drop Box Surveillance Rule, however, was found to be consistent with the statutory requirements and was upheld. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding the standing of the election board member and the validity of the remaining two rules. View "REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE v. ETERNAL VIGILANCE ACTION, INC." on Justia Law

Thomas G. Dean, representing himself, appealed the dismissal of his challenge to the qualifications of candidates in the 2022 partisan election for the office of Georgia Labor Commissioner. Dean, who lost the Democratic primary election, filed a petition for declaratory judgment against the State of Georgia, seeking to be declared the sole qualified candidate. He did not challenge the qualifications of the other candidates through the pre-election administrative process and failed to file an affidavit verifying his petition as required for post-election contests.The trial court dismissed Dean's petition for two reasons: his failure to challenge the other candidates' qualifications before the primary within the required timeframe and his failure to verify his petition by affidavit within five days of certification of the primary election results. Dean appealed to the Court of Appeals, which transferred the case to the Supreme Court of Georgia due to its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over election contests.The Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed Dean's appeal, emphasizing the duty of litigants in election contests to expedite resolution before an election is held. The court noted that Dean did not make every effort to have his claims decided before the election, including failing to file a pre-election challenge and seeking to expedite the proceeding and stay the primary election. The court held that the principles requiring dismissal of election contests on prudential grounds apply equally to declaratory judgment suits. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without addressing the merits of Dean's claims. View "DEAN v. STATE OF GEORGIA" on Justia Law

Henry Strickland contested the results of a city commissioner election in Waycross, Georgia, after losing to Alvin Nelson. Strickland argued that the election used an outdated 2005 map of voting districts instead of the correct 2011 map, resulting in 32 voters casting ballots in the wrong districts. The trial court agreed, finding that the use of the 2005 map could have affected the election outcome, which Nelson won by 18 votes. Consequently, the court vacated the election and ordered a new one to be held in November 2024 using the 2011 map.The trial court denied Nelson's motion to dismiss Strickland's petition for insufficient process and service of process and rejected Nelson's argument that the petition should be dismissed for lack of expeditious pursuit. The court found irregularities in the election due to the use of the 2005 map and ordered a new election. Nelson appealed the trial court's decision, and the Supreme Court of Georgia granted his request for a stay pending the appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the trial court's judgment. The Court held that the 2011 map was never effective because the required filings with the Secretary of State and the clerk of the superior court, as mandated by OCGA § 36-35-5, were never made. Since the 2011 map was not effective at the time of the election, there was no basis for the trial court's conclusion that enough illegal or irregular votes were counted to change or cast doubt on the election outcome. Therefore, Strickland's petition was rejected, and the trial court's order vacating the election was reversed. View "NELSON v. STRICKLAND" on Justia Law

In May 2024, Tabitha Ponder ran for a seat on the Georgia Court of Appeals but lost to Jeffrey Davis. Three weeks after the election, Ponder and Randolph Frails filed an election contest petition, claiming Davis was not a Georgia resident and thus not qualified to run. They appealed the superior court's dismissal of their petition.Before the election, Frails alone challenged Davis's qualifications under OCGA § 21-2-5, alleging Davis was not a Georgia resident. An administrative law judge initially found Davis had not proven his residency, but the Secretary of State later determined Davis met the residency requirement. Frails then sought judicial review and an emergency hearing but did not request to stay the election. The superior court dismissed Frails's petition as moot after the election results were certified, and Frails did not appeal this decision.On June 11, Ponder and Frails filed a post-election contest petition, again challenging Davis's residency and seeking to have Ponder declared the winner. The superior court dismissed their petition, citing defective verifications and their failure to act promptly. Ponder and Frails appealed, arguing errors in the superior court's rulings.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and emphasized the importance of resolving election disputes before the election occurs. The court noted that neither Ponder nor Frails took sufficient steps to expedite their claims before the election. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits, citing prudential reasons to avoid invalidating elections after the fact when challengers fail to act with dispatch. The appeal was dismissed. View "Ponder v. Davis" on Justia Law

Christina Peterson, representing herself, challenged the qualifications of Valerie Vie as a candidate for probate court judge in Douglas County, Georgia. Peterson claimed that Vie had not been a resident of Douglas County for the required time to run for the office. Peterson initially filed a challenge with the local Board of Elections, which was denied. She then filed a petition for review in superior court, which was also denied. After the primary election, which Vie won, Peterson filed a second petition in superior court challenging the election results on the same grounds.The local Board of Elections held a hearing and denied Peterson's challenge. Peterson then filed a petition for review in the superior court, which was also denied. Peterson did not seek to stay the primary election and filed an application for discretionary appeal with the Supreme Court of Georgia, which was denied. Subsequently, Peterson filed a post-primary petition in superior court, which was dismissed on the grounds of collateral estoppel, res judicata, and mootness due to her failure to seek a stay of the primary election.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and dismissed Peterson's appeal. The court held that parties seeking to challenge election results must act with dispatch to resolve disputes before the election occurs. Peterson failed to expedite her challenges and did not seek a stay of the primary election. The court emphasized the importance of resolving election disputes promptly to avoid unnecessary expenses and ensure the finality of election results. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits of Peterson's claims. View "Peterson v. Vie" on Justia Law

In this case, Georgia voters challenged the qualifications of presidential electors certified by two independent candidates for President, Dr. Cornel West and Claudia De la Cruz. The challengers argued that these electors were required to file nomination petitions signed by a number of qualified Georgia voters to have their candidates placed on the ballot. Since none of the electors filed such petitions, the challengers contended that the independent candidates should not appear on the ballot for the November 2024 General Election.The Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially agreed with the challengers, concluding that the electors had not met the qualification requirements under Georgia’s Election Code. However, the Secretary of State overruled the ALJ’s decisions, determining that the electors had qualified under Georgia law. Subsequently, two different superior court judges reversed the Secretary’s decisions, agreeing with the ALJ that the electors had not filed the necessary nomination petitions and thus had not qualified to place their candidates on the ballot.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and held that each presidential elector for an independent candidate is required to file a nomination petition in their own name under OCGA § 21-2-132 (e). The Court found that since no electors for West or De la Cruz had filed such petitions, they had not qualified as candidates for presidential elector. Consequently, the Court affirmed the superior courts' decisions, which concluded that neither West’s nor De la Cruz’s electors satisfied the statutory requirements for their candidates to appear on Georgia’s ballot for President.The Court also addressed procedural issues, including the dismissal of the Georgia Republican Party’s appeal due to lack of party status in the lower court and the denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party. The Court affirmed the superior court’s orders regarding the remedies, including the posting of notices at polling places to inform voters of the disqualification of the candidates. View "Al-Bari v. Pigg" on Justia Law

The Catoosa County Republican Party (CCRP) and its executive officers attempted to prevent certain candidates from qualifying for the May 2024 Republican primary for county commission seats, citing a statute that mandates candidates follow their party's procedural rules. The CCRP's local rules required candidates to be pre-approved by the County Committee and present a notarized affidavit at the time of qualifying. On March 4, 2024, four candidates filed petitions against the CCRP Defendants, alleging they were denied the right to qualify despite meeting statutory requirements. They sought temporary restraining orders and injunctions to prevent the CCRP from blocking their qualifications.The trial court issued temporary restraining orders on March 5, 2024, and later denied the CCRP Defendants' motions to lift the orders and dismiss the petitions. The court ruled that the CCRP's rules were not enforceable and ordered that the candidates be allowed to qualify. The CCRP Defendants filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, which transferred the case to the Supreme Court of Georgia, recognizing it had jurisdiction over election contests.The Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that parties seeking to challenge election results must act with urgency and exhaust all avenues to resolve disputes before the election. The CCRP Defendants failed to expedite their appeal and even requested delays. The court reiterated its long-standing precedent that it will not review challenges to candidate qualifications once the election has occurred, especially when the challenging party has not acted promptly. The court's decision underscores the importance of finality in election results and the need for challengers to litigate their claims with dispatch. View "CATOOSA COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY v. HENRY" on Justia Law

In a special election for Chatham County Commissioner, Jeffry L. Miller, an elector, filed a pro se petition against several Chatham County election officials and candidate Malinda Jane Scott Hodge. Miller contested the election results, arguing that Hodge was ineligible due to residency requirements and her former position on the Chatham County Board of Elections. He also claimed that the use of a QR code on the ballot was illegal and that the election officials failed to provide proper notice of redistricting.The trial court held an evidentiary hearing but did not issue a ruling before the runoff election. Miller did not call any witnesses or present new evidence at the hearing. The runoff election proceeded, and the trial court later dismissed Miller's petition, ruling that Hodge was eligible and that the special election results were valid. The court also found that Miller's petition was moot due to the subsequent runoff election. Miller appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed the appeal, citing long-standing precedent that election challenges must be resolved with dispatch before a subsequent election occurs. The court emphasized that Miller failed to seek an expedited ruling or a stay of the runoff election. The court clarified that while the occurrence of a subsequent election does not necessarily moot an election contest, prudential reasons and statutory framework require swift resolution of such disputes. The court concluded that Miller's delay and failure to utilize available procedures warranted dismissal of the appeal. View "Miller v. Hodge" on Justia Law

Appellants Sarah Thompson, Kevin Muldowney, and Edward Metz filed three, virtually identical complaints in their respective counties on December 6, 2022, alleging that the voting system used that day in the runoff election for a United States Senate seat did not comply with Georgia law. The trial courts entered orders either dismissing the complaints or denying relief. Because the complaints did not name any defendant and because Appellants failed to serve any defendant, the trial courts correctly determined that they had no authority to grant the relief sought. Accordingly, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed in all three cases. View "In re: December 6, 2022 General Election Ballot" on Justia Law

Camden County, Georgia appealed a superior court's denial of its “Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Other Relief” concerning an order entered by Camden County Probate Judge Robert Sweatt, Jr., setting a special election for a referendum on whether resolutions authorizing the County’s purchase of land for a rocket launch facility should have been repealed (the “Referendum”). The County claimed the Referendum was not authorized under Subsection (b) (2) of Article IX, Section II, Paragraph I of the Georgia Constitution, which established home rule for counties (the “Home Rule Paragraph”) and that the results of the Referendum are a nullity. As a result, the County argued that the superior court erred in denying its petition for writs of prohibition and mandamus against Judge Sweatt and its petition for a judgment declaring that the Referendum was not authorized under the Constitution. After review, the Georgia Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the superior court. View "Camden County v. Sweatt, et al." on Justia Law